This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1899 Excerpt: ...and the statute of 1852, c. 227, only authorized the wife's separate deed of estates acquired subsequent to the Act of 1844, c. 117. Hence, her deed of March 12, 1853, being a deed of real estate acquired previous to 1844, was unauthorized by the statute, and therefore void. The statute of February 12, 1855, c. 120, ...
Read More
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1899 Excerpt: ...and the statute of 1852, c. 227, only authorized the wife's separate deed of estates acquired subsequent to the Act of 1844, c. 117. Hence, her deed of March 12, 1853, being a deed of real estate acquired previous to 1844, was unauthorized by the statute, and therefore void. The statute of February 12, 1855, c. 120, provided that, "any married woman seized and possessed in her own right of any real estate situated within this State, (might) sell, convey, and dispose of the same by her separate deed in her own name," and that "no action shall be maintained by the husband of any such married woman, or by auy person claiming under or through him, for the possession or value of any property held or disposed of by her, as aforesaid," and the defendant's counsel insists that this action is thereby prohibited. The deeds of the wife being inoperative, as before stated, the tenant shows no title. But, the tenant being in possession, the demandant cannot disturb him, unless he shows title, in himself, and this he has done. The demandant shows title by his levy, to the husband's life estate. The wife did not hold it j she was not "seized and possessed" of her husband's life estate, his freehold, of which he was seized. She could not join him in a suit for an injury to the profits of the land. 2 Kent's Com. 131. If he had sold and conveyed it, she could not lawfully enter or interrupt his grantee's possession during her husband's life. Melius v. Snowman, 21 Maine, 201. Tenant defaulted. Teknet, C. J., Rice, Appleton, Mat, and Davis, J J., concurred. CLAPP v. STOUGHTON. 1830. 10 Pickering (Massachusetts), 463.1 Wilde, J. The plaintiff claims as administrator of the estate of Ann Monk, and in her right as she was one of the heirs of Abigail ...
Read Less
